thalesofmiletus: You have it backwards. Liberals are high status; conservatives are low status. When a liberal attacks a conservative, it’s punching down. When a conservative attacks a liberal, that is punching up.

That’s strange. In the U.S. “conservatives” control the legislature and the presidency. When the “conservative” president punches at individual citizens, often explicitly threatening government action, he is clearly punching down.

And yet conservatives are mostly powerless to implement any policy that liberals disagree with, possessing a slim majority of the merely elected government and almost no share of the un-elected government. Also, remember that liberals can punch right (that is, downward) with zero consequence, both literally and figuratively, yet if and when conservatives respond in kind, they get the law and the media thrown at them as the last 12 months or so of street-fare had aptly demonstrated.

thalesofmiletus: And yet conservatives are mostly powerless to implement any policy that liberals disagree with, possessing a slim majority of the merely elected government and almost no share of the un-elected government.

That the president is constrained by the Constitution is a conservative principle. Nonetheless, the president has significant power to wield against individuals and corporations, certainly more than a largely unknown comedian. Not only are you making the preposterous contrary claim, but you are holding the comedian to a higher standard than the President of the United States.

Trump at Fiorina: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president.”

The topic of this sub-thread is bullying, in particular, the distinction between punching up and punching down. You claimed that liberals are high status; conservatives are low status, yet so-called conservatives control the organs of government, so can hardly be said to be in a position of disadvantage. In particular, a largely unknown comedian making jokes at the expense of the president or his spokesperson is hardly punching down.

Look at the media reaction, the industry with the unrivaled ability to determine “public opinion” — Wolf isn’t some lone voice in the wilderness speaking truth to power; when she punches down at Sanders, she does so with the full weight of the Cathedral behind her.

Meanwhile, be sure to let us know when Wolf is imprisoned, deported, audited or is otherwise victimized by all that alleged conservative power, LOL.

Liberals, in an Orwellian fever, have (in thier own minds) redefined “Nazi” and “Fascist” to mean ” anyone I disagree with”. Which is why they’re OK with themselves going around using fascist methods and copying the Nazi technique of redefining opponents as “not really people, not like we, the superior ones, are”.

Once you’ve de-humanized your opponent/prey, any means necessary becomes logical (in your mind) and you can be a total bitch/bastard to others, and it totally doesn’t count (in your mind).

Congratulation, Antifa supporting Libs, you’ve recreated National Socialism 80 years later just by putting “Inter” in the front and pretending that evil means doesn’t count because you’re you.

Actually, in one of his books (I forget whether it’s in The Lucifer Principle or The Global Brain, sorry) Howard Bloom makes the case that bullies are conformity enforcers, and between Trump and the media, it’s strikingly obvious who the conformists are.

Bullying is bullying. Bad behavior is bad behavior.
Just as politeness and manners matter, rudeness and personal attacks matter.

You perhaps believe the lie that if you belong to a less favored “class” of people, that gives you unlimited license to behave badly to others. People are Individual persons, not an entire class.

A minority person CAN be prejudiced against a non/other-minority.
A person lower on a totem pole CAN be unfair to someone “higher up”.
And status level is not entirely fixed, it’s situational as well.

You obviously believe a reporter is “punching up” when they personally attack, say, president Trump.
I doubt you believed the same when the president’s name started with an “O”.

Personal attacks can sting regardless of the status levels of attacker/target or the truth of the matter.
Liberal press and comedians obviously believe this or they wouldn’t take so much obvious malicious pleasure in harping on the size of Trump’s hands, for just one example.

If I called the governor of NY a bigot/Nazi/Fascist/homophobe/whatever, how does “punching up” or “down” matter compared to fairness or truthfulness?

Granted, Trump is just déclassé enuf that when he gets insulted by our self-appointed betters, he hits right back at them, politeness in response to rudeness be damned.

You want more Trump? Or any Trump at all?
It was at a previous WHCA dinner that Trump attended as a major donor to attending politicians that multiple speakers decided it would be hilarious to treat Trump as a roast target – he had boasted that he could run for President better than the current crop of crap – and jump on how much of an idiot he was to think that he, HE, could aspire to the office like he was as good as THEM or something.
Funny how that worked out for them, huh?
Not surprising he treats the Correspondents Dinner since as a crapfest of hostility.

Again, who is or is not of superior “status” is often situational. The press (and the press’s stalking horse here) HAS power over a target when they are a captive target constrained to sit and at worst grimace at rude snide “jokes”. Don Rickles was the master of insult humor, and utterly capable of doing it without coming across as a total bastard, this person, not so much.
“Oh, I imply Donald Trump has a small penis, haha”.
“Oh, every thing this lady sitting here says is a lie, haha”.
“Oh, see that person eating his/her dinner, he/she is a nazi, haha”.

Sarah is hated by the press because whenever they ask a leasing question with the “correct” answer already implied by the phrasing, she throws the “when did you stop beating your wife?” Right back in the askers smarmy face. In a press conference don’t believe for a NY minute that the press pool reporters DON’T have situational high status, and that they are “punching down” when they think they can get away with it. Just as the speaker here had the upper hand status when she had the mike and decided rude, hostile, and insulting was going to be her mode here.

BobM: Again, who is or is not of superior “status” is often situational. The press (and the press’s stalking horse here) HAS power over a target when they are a captive target constrained to sit and at worst grimace at rude snide “jokes”.

By tradition, the President has the opportunity to roast the hosts. He chose not to.

BobM: Sarah is hated by the press …

Actually, many in the pool press like Sanders personally, but object to her constantly lying for her lying boss.

The hatred/dislike between the DC press and Trump is both deep and visceral. In a traditional “roast”, the jokes while sometimes pointed aren’t anywhere near the hostility the press corps holds twords the guy they see as the buffoon who for no reason they can comprehend prevented their Chosen One from winning.

They were hostile and cruel when he had merely claimed he MIGHT run, and would be a better candidate than any of the usual suspects up for the race. Now that he’s shown them up by turning the joke back on them, their dismay and enmity knows no bounds.

In that situation, it’s hard to see any upside for Trump – or any Trump ally – to voluntarily submitt to a roast where none of the “jokes” against them would be “good-natured”, and responding in kind would only result in more slander as the double standards of the Anti-Trumpers kick in.

BobM: The hatred/dislike between the DC press and Trump is both deep and visceral.

You seem to have abandoned your position that Trump is in the inferior position, and doesn’t have a reasonable platform from which to respond. Frankly, Trump is a lying bully who can’t take what he dishes out.

I actually really like Sarah. I think she’s very resourceful. But she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like, maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies.

Nothing in there about Sanders’ eyeshadow being trashy. Rather, it’s a joke about her lies.

And it is probably good for the GOP candidates at the next election as those not paying attention were made aware just how far into the sewer seems normal for the Dems now.

Deflecting to one joke that wasn’t as bad as the others may be a wise tactic to help older liberal women with pussy hats cope with the losers they’ve now hooked up with….but it seems the best you can do is deflect to a joke that smears professional women about “smokey eyes” or aka “bedroom eyes”. Not working and only calling attention to the other jokes that are pretty bad.

The boat’s sinking – bail before you become a bigger embarrassment to your kids and grandkids.

Mike Pence. “He thinks abortion is murder. Which, first of all, don’t knock it ’til you try it – and when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you’ve really got to get that baby out of there. And yeah, sure, you can groan all you want. I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion. You know, unless it’s the one you got for your secret mistress.”

Bucky Barkingham: You say that Spicer lied and because he was Trump’s spokesman therefore Trump lied? So guilt by association?

Spicer wasn’t just “associated” with Trump, but was his official spokesperson. There is ample evidence that Spicer’s lies were at the direction of Trump. We cited an extensive list of Trump’s lies. He lies even when the truth would do.

Interesting that the WHCA has not issued an apology to Sarah Sanders for the execrable performance of their chosen EmCee for their annual self-congratulatory bash. Also WHCA President Talev should be very sensitive to comments about weight or girth such as have been leveled against Sanders.